Agastya

Thought I'd highlight a minor point on this. One I should've spotted when reviewing, is a little late to make the change now it's published.

In news reports, it is common to replace "and" with a comma in headlines. Keeps them short, highly unlikely to impact on the meaning; or how people will understand it. I'm pretty sure this is somewhere in the style guide, I'm just a little rusty on reviewing. I'm sure you'll agree 6-1, 6-2, 3-6 and 6-3: Djokovic beats Federer, advances to Aus Open 2016 Final will be understood exactly the same as the current headline. This is just a sub-editor's 'trick'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• <Ping> yes, I am aware of keeping things short wherever possible. (Just in case, if you did not visit my userpage, it is acagastya (t · c · b).
  AGastya (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah. I found myself here via a talk link in the article history. Just dusting off an ancient template that'll help sort the confusion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In short, why?

Could these not have been covered in a single article since they refer to a single (awards ceremony) event? They seem to rely upon a significant number of the same sources for distinct articles. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Brian McNeil:I had no intention to make it in one article as it is no longer interesting. The last article I submitted, it is so boring. Having something more to write, focusing on a single event makes me actually want that article to get published. Else there is no satisfaction. Plus, other things come into pictures that Taylor Swift is my favourite female singer, I enjoy Ed Sheeran and The Weeknd's songs...
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's surely a more optimal way to handle such an event. Fewer separate articles, probably just one; but I agree that humanizing details make a big difference. Perhaps we should be looking through the archives for examples (potentially, both good and bad) of how past writers have hanlded such things. --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

moved article; didn't notice you'd been editing moments before. hope I didn't step on your toes, as it were. --Pi zero (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: Nah. That was just a change. Thanks for moving.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up, with election today (which has everyone here on edge) and, by coincidence, several schedule appointments irl, my day today is very fragmented. It's not impossible it could be after midnight UTC before I can tackle your article, though I'd hope to squeeze it in sooner. --Pi zero (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am aware of the election, desperately waiting for the result as well.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Got the article published well within today UTC, after all. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to see you're writing an article about it. I left a comment on the talk page, and then revised the comment; just as the story itself is sensitive in the US, my role as reviewer is also sensitive in that, being in the midst of the story, I need to be very careful of my own neutrality in the article production process. --Pi zero (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: Yes, I saw the comment. Since this is not my core topic, I don't know what to write and in which order I have to write. What I have planned is, after the lede, I will explain the controversies of both (can you just remind me some?). Then, I will explain electoral vote. Then, I will highlight the reaction of the people, crashing of Canadian immigration site, and reaction of other people, removal of "ban of Muslims" from Trump's website, and how Narendra Modi's announcement of removing Rupees 50 and 1000 bills affected the stock markets. Can you just guide me?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Keeping in mind, if I'm to review it I have to be 'uninvolved' in writing it. So I can only suggest broadly, for your consideration.

• Don't try to summarize the campaign. People are going to write whole books trying to do that, for decades or centuries to come, and all or very nearly all those books will be non-neutral. Summary drags in an element of non-neutrality, which is why Wikipedia is almost never able to be neutral in the Wikinews sense of the term. Stick to objective facts.

With that qualification, your outline sounds like it should work. --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

A small addendum:

• While I'm wary of getting into the controversies, and I certainly can't provide a list of things for you to include — "uninvolved", right? — I would suggest you could get a good sense of things by skimming the summary sections of WSS's articles.

--Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sadly I'm just not very resilient anymore, for evening/night reviews. I remember pulling all-nighters when reviewing WSS's monthly article for the 2012 election cycle, which was only four years ago; but, I'm rarely able to do that anymore. If nobody else picks it up sooner, I hope to plow into this article tomorrow morning. --Pi zero (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can look, however I do not have reviewer bits so I cannot review the article for publication. - Amgine | t 04:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the past, I have generally interpreted the 24-hour horizon to mean that changes need to be published by publish+24, rather than merely submitted — since that is how the publication threshold works. The wording in the archive policy isn't explicit on this point (though I'd be curious to go back and reread the community discussion when the 24-hour figure was imposed). I knew you had in mind to add something, but figured we'd probably missed it when I was unable to stay up longer and no change had yet been submitted. I don't want to simply reject the change, under the circumstances, and of course I'm also wary of allowing it. I'm thinking of scaling it back a little, neatifying it a bit, verifying it, and... then considering what to do and how to go about doing it. I'm glad this is context, in a much larger article. --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, for better or worse (or both), I've done something. --Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I might not be around to ping BRS. You may wish to do so by leaving a note on his user talk. Just a thought. --Pi zero (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying my best, but I have a sinking feeling I won't get to both your articles before the one from Sunday passes beyond its third day. --Pi zero (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Agastya Chandrakant. :-)

Please check a few questions here. Thank you.

--Gryllida 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

		The Order of the Modest Pencil For completing 5 edits.
		Great work! Keep it up!--Bddpaux (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Bddpaux!
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Snag in review; please see review comments. Alas, that I didn't get to this until toward the end of my day; I really wanted to get to it promptly in the morning, but things just haven't gone well for me today. :S  --Pi zero (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Published. I was interested to read what the en.wp article on coursepacks said about their copyright status in the US. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

btw, the user's account has now been globally locked. --Pi zero (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's been some discussion in the past of whether it's valid to add a source and manifestly not use it. It's not as simple question as it might sound. If the purpose of the additional source was to show that someone else ran the story (supporting a claim of relevance), or to show that it actually happened (strengthening verification), then just adding the additional source clearly could do those things. If the concern has to do with copyright then clearly just adding the source wouldn't do. And if the concern has to do with breadth of perspective, well, that's not quite as cut-and-dried as with copyright but there's something iffy about it. I recall Gryllida not-ready'ing an article, on at least one occasion, on grounds that a source was added after the fact and therefore obviously wasn't really used. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: In this article, I really do not have anything else to add. If there is really anything we can add, those are only pull-quotes.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I realize bullet points vs numbers isn't a big deal but in general I'd rather you didn't alter my talk page posts. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wished to answer your question one by one, but was in hurry. Mom was calling.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I get it. In general, if you make a change to someone else's post but have a good reason, say in your post that you're making that change so that people don't think I 1-2-3-4'd you like a schoolyard know-it-all on my own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Agastya,

When writing an article about software release, I would suggest to review WN:5W briefly and make sure the leading paragraph(the first paragraph) has information on the version released, how the release was announced, who announced it, not using passive voice (even though I am using it a lot in this sentence, it's not how we write it in news articles), and details on where the new version -- its files and its release notes -- was uploaded. I think I'm editing the Telegram article and as I am making the same kind of correction as I did in the previous article, it is perhaps worth pointing it out. (Admittedly I liked the thought of reading and editing article on a slightly familiar field. Having an article sequence is a nice thing.)

--Gryllida 02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida: There is something that I would like to point out, which is tangled with other subject and affects the focus of this discussion.

In my country, there are so many news companies which are crap. There are also some good companies, in my opinion, but their newspaper was never available at the place where I live. With what I got to read as a teenager, release notes and FOSS, got my attention though in small traces. Adding this can influence the young minds to some extends. But at the same time, my classmates, who were not interested in the knowing if it is open-source, if it is available for free, or to get a pirated copy, did not care about it being mentioned. This happens to the one who are working. Thus, it may or may not be a useful information for the readers. Since I am interested in FOSS, I prefer it over the proprietary softwares to a certain extend and if it is effective, I like to bring it to other people's notice. And this habit can creep into the articles that I write, affecting the NPOV, and that is something I have to learn.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 06:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello how are you? I hope you're well. Thank you for editing the news, because I published this news not to let pass blank who was responsible, has already surrendered to Justice. The problem in question is knowing write correctly after translating it, since those who do not speak English very well, ask the user like you, ed to correct the publication. PontoComPontoBR (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@PontoComPontoBR: I have made few changes. I am really happy to see editors from other languages deciding to grow the overall wikinews community. Cheers!
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nice, Agastya Chandrakant. It is possible that I come here. Publish news from English-speaking countries, like the US. PontoComPontoBR (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@PontoComPontoBR: Actually, I wish editors of each language wikinews should import and export news of all over the world. I have practiced translating news; death of former German president on German wikinews, Neymar's contract extention with Barcelona in the Portuguese, Catalan and Spanish wikinews, Nadal's withdrawal from French Open in Spanish and French wikinews because it is related to the places where this language is spoken. But, it would be ideal to have as many articles on as many wikinews. Well, congratulations! Your article has been published. By the way, if you wish to translate news articles in the future, feel free to do it. Reviewers continuously monitor the recent changes. I hope you will be available on either of Portuguese or Spanish wikinews. Since I don't know many people on those projects, it is difficult to get it reviewed there.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 18:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would have liked to review this, honestly; it looked interesting. Alas, the airport shooter article took me all day, and I just wasn't up to turning around instantly for another review in the two hours or so that remained of the UTC day. I wonder if we can catch the story at a later development. --Pi zero (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• http://en.wfcms.org/Englishpage/detatils.jsp?id=4038
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellaqmentry
• https://www.change.org/p/jimmy-wales-clean-up-the-wikipedia-acupuncture-page-to-reflect-medical-and-scientific-consensus
• http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-01/18/content_27991550.htm
• http://www.ecns.cn/2017/01-19/242389.shtml
• http://www.ecns.cn/2017/01-18/242291.shtml

Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 20:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Source citation problem (review comment). --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Agastya, keep interwikilinks even though it is managed by Wikidata? it is look strange, the interwikilinks are out of date and the others wikis delete them. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DARIO SEVERI: I checked the links. They are working and the page category page of Spain and Zambia is available on those projects.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 09:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, DARIO SEVERI. There are several reasons we keep our local interwikis. One is that removing local interwikis would create what is called a single point of failure: a single place from which everything can be broken. Wikis should try to avoid single points of failure. Another is that, because every local project organizes itself a little differently, there are always cases where wikidata cannot generate the most appropriate interwikis from a particular local page. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero:, thanks both of you for the kind explanation. I learnt something more about how the different Wikis work :) DARIO SEVERI (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DARIO SEVERI:Since we're on the topic. The practical reality is we mostly leave Wikidata to do its thing, unless and until there's a mismatch between their setup and ours. But once somebody for whatever reason chooses to add them, we keep them; if somebody were to painstakingly mass-add, we'd keep them. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I just noticed, now I warn you. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 19:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

1. Mexican president Peña Nieto cancels meeting with Trump
2. Federer beats Wawrinka to reach Australian Open final
3. President Trump slams Manning for calling Obama 'weak president'
4. German teenager sentenced six years for stabbing police officer
   Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply